Isn't it kinda pathetic that we have to tell each other to introduce ourselves to new neighbors, and vice versa?
We need to think about home schooling and its repercussions on living among others.
Extreme religious upbringings + home schooling? A big red flag for problems down the road.
7
A disconnected sociopath who fell over the edge. What pushed him? Who knows. Maybe he was, well, nuts.
1
No mention in this story of Conditt's roommates....Did they not know about their roomies' bomb-building? Did they aid or abet? Did they keep quiet, for whatever reason, despite knowing Conditt was doing evil? Why no mention, NYT?
2
Perhaps he was unaware that his targets had racial implications until it showed up that way in the news. I'm not saying he was unprejudiced, but I think any prejudices that he had were not part of the point he wanted to make. I wonder if he generally felt more comfortable being in east Austin, and that's why he started bombing there. The photo of his neighborhood looks a lot like east Austin to me. (I've lived in Austin since 2001.) I think that he preferred to have a more chaotic mayhem-and-murder approach when he considered it over time, and so he started mixing it up and bombing in the more upscale neighborhood. It wasn't about black or brown people. It was about HIM. That's what I think.
Here is an idea.
He was a right-wing terrorist. He targeted and killed black men for no reason other than the fact he was a racist religious zealot, raised by racist religious zealots.
Full stop.
5
The Independent newspaper in the U.K., a leading and respected newspaper there, has said the bomber, along with a family member, was a member of a right-wing "Christian" survivalist group that had discussed using "dangerous chemicals." I haven't seen this looked into by the press on this side of the pond, however.
4
He was just like the Unabomber -- a sociopath. Deliberately harming others is hateful. Just like creeps who torture small defenseless animals -- amoral. Prisons are filled thugs who blame others for their inability to "just knock it off."
2
If he wasn't white - "WHY" wouldn't even have been an issue. Just call it 'terrorism' - which it is.
6
Another white male domestic terrorist who gets the "what made him do it, such a great kid?" treatment. What about his victims who just about get mention here? How about reporting that focuses on them and what a heart-stopping loss for their families, friends and community, and for families of color who have to worry about whether their children are next. This is terrorism on our door steps and it's reported as if a good dog went bad in the dog park, because the victims.
10
The Austin killer/terrorist: many saw in him a polite loner and nerdy recluse. But he was obsessed with things wrong in America: homosexuality, gay marriage, women having abortions, and no full adherence to the death penalty. In a schizophrenic way he used his skills to find ways "to correct" insidiously what in his view (he is not alone) ails America. There is more to his craziness. But it's a replica of so many divides in this nation.
5
According to authorities, the Austin bomber left a target list that “makes no rhyme or reason.” He did not target any racial, ethnic or religious group. He did not target political headquarters, abortion clinics or gay nightclubs. He planted bombs in an upscale white neighborhood as well as a racially and ethnically diverse lower-income neighborhood. He seems comparable to the “Mad Bomber” who terrorize New York City by planting pope bombs at random locations, including Central Station. The Mad Bomber turned out to be a disgruntled Con Edison employee who was angry because the utility refused to pay him disability benefits. The Austin bomber had recently been fired due to poor work performance at a semiconductor manufacturer. He had two roommates who may be able to shed some light on his motivation.
5
At this early stage of the investigation, we know for sure two African-American males were killed, a 75 year old Hispanic woman was wounded, two men who stumbled on a bomb by the side of the road were injured, their ethnicity unknown, and a woman at the FedEx facility was also wounded. It is tempting to see these attacks as racially motivated, but the evidence isn't there yet.
It is entirely possible we may never know what his motivation was and we have to accept this. But, I am willing to bet, buried deep in all the evidence, homeschooling, religious dogma, chats with friends, etc., there will be clues, if not the actual motivation spelled out loud and clear.
No one starts making bombs and is willing to kill or maim innocent people because they are bored. These acts were likely revenge or hate motivated.
And, we simply must address the question of why young, white men are turning to this abhorrent level of violence so easily and with an utter disregard for the sanctity of life.
6
The Austin bomber left behind a message admitting that he wanted to cause mayhem and death, and he certainly did that. He showed no remorse for what he did. Law enforcement will never find out what prompted this man to do what he did. It appears that, like the Las Vegas and Florida school shooters, the Austin bomber just felt like killing people he didn't even know.
6
A 'ration'? Is that like a rationale? Or a reason?
1
Some people have been grumbling about the fact that this person has not been referred to as a terrorist in the media, with the implication that the color of his skin makes a difference on when the designation is made. But to be a terrorist you have be someone who engages in indiscriminate violence against civilians in aid of political or ideological ends. So certain anarchists of the late 1900s who planted bombs were called terrorists. So were certain parts of the Irish Republican Army, certain Basques, certain Israelis, certain Palestinians, and so on. If it should be found that this person was killing civilians through bombs because he thought it would advance some cause, at that point it might be appropriate to call him a terrorist. I'm not completely sure about calling a lone actor a terrorist. But if the Unabomber would count as a terrorist, so would this person (if he was ideologically motivated). But even then it would be a bit odd since one would have to show how he could be thinking he was advancing a cause without being public about what the cause was. In any case, the word "terrorist" is a loose word of social science. It's not clear that being called serial killer is more honourable than being called a terrorist.
3
“Terrorism” means “causing terror” political terrorists are people who do it with an agenda that is, more or less, “sane” and directed at a particular type of target.
Assuming the deceased was the Austin bomber, he nay have simply had a list of irrationally chosen targets based on “people out to get him”, or a desire to go out with a bang - and 15 minutes of fame - to become THE most important topics of national discussion and the Ultimate Terror in a major city for as long as possible. “The man who outwitted close to 400 federal law enforcers for a month.
Or possibly, dare we even think this had some warped reasons in a sick mind about how seriously law enforcers respond to random bombings v bombs that kill ethnic minorities?
Incidentally, can one “mail” a package using any shipper other than a public ir semi-public postal system? I thought that word was only used from shipping through that particular class of shippers,
1
Amen, Paul.......
In order to be considered a terrorist, one needs to commit violence in the pursuit of political gains- that's the definition.
So what were the political motives behind Mark Conditt's violence?
The truth is that nobody really knows right now. Sure, we can all speculate, but the reality is that Conditt's motives have not yet been established and may never be. And even if his crimes were determined to be racially motivated, hate crimes do not necessarily = 'terrorism' [see Dylan Roof].
The fact is that law enforcement officials have not yet been able to determine Conditt's motives. So why the outcry to label this guy 'a terrorist' when there's simply no evidence to support that claim?
How does impulsively slapping the 'terrorist' label on Conditt genuinely help or solve anything right now? The Las Vegas shooter was not 'a terrorist', but if we HAD labeled him 'a terrorist', despite the facts, would that have had any tangible effect in preventing the next mass murder or serial killing?
What if Trump miraculously came out and did 'officially' label Mark Conditt a terrorist? Then what?
Please, America: less reactionary, misguided attempts to symbolically super-shame dead people [they're dead- they can't be shamed]. Instead? More nuanced, solution-oriented critical thinking.
1
He was a home-schooled, right-wing, Christian fundamentalist. He was raised to be anti-social. There are many like him that do not resort to violence, but we should not be surprised that there are some that do...
7
In the Detroit area this week, a couple was charged with murdering the wife's mother; a man was charged with murdering and mutilating the body of a young woman; a man was charged with murder of a woman despite having told police that she had committed suicide; a man cleared of four murders was arrested for aggravated assault; a man shot and killed his ex-wife (the children are staying with relatives); a Central Michigan student was at a bond hearing for murder of his parents; and a 27-year old man murdered his grandmother, his uncle and a third person.
Not only does the Times not care about the motives for any of these killings, it does not care about any of the killings. But the Austin bombing gets multiple articles.
6
Mystery? What mystery? He was an insecure right wing ideological loser with conflicting irrational grievances he probably couldn't understand or express except with pipe bombs.
8
'Motive' is a minor secondary or tertiary detail that is completely overrated.
The motivating factor in most of these acts of white male Christian terrorism is personal insanity, mental instability and/or anti-social personality disorder.
He was insane...and his home-schooling and religious upbringing didn't teach him too many coping skills, either.
We know 'why' he did it; he was nuts.
21
Christianity, even mainstream Christianity, teaches that there is evil in the world, while secular society seems to believe much more in mental illness as the reason bad things are done. Truly insane people have a hard time pulling off complicated projects, which may be fortunate for the rest of us. But one doesn't have to be insane to highly and violently anti-social.
4
This is actually the prevailing view of right wingers. It's not the weapons, it's the mental illness. The NRA is always using this line. It's a great way to divert attention from destructive weapons to psychological mumbo jumbo.
1